Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Room 317 (bogus analogies)
Message-ID: <1333@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 00:24:38 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1333
Posted: Fri Feb 22 00:24:38 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 05:36:51 EST
References: <47800004@ccvaxa.UUCP> <609@masscomp.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 29

[]

carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) writes:
>In article <47800004@ccvaxa.UUCP> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes:
>>Of course, even if it WERE a baby I still wouldn't grant it a right to the
>>use of its host's circulatory system without her continuing permission.
>
>Good thing you aren't a Siamese Twin.  With your personality, he/she might
>decide that they didn't like sharing major organs with you, and have an
>operation that could kill you both.
>
>        Carl Hommel

I perceive a bogus analogy here.  Separation of "siamese" twins is
not analogous to abortion of fetuses.  Siamese twins form together;
they have joint ownership of the organs they share.  Thus for one to
force the other to undergo an operation involving the shared organs
involves an infringement of the other's rights.  But fetuses, on the
other hand, form after their mothers; they do not share any joint
ownership with their mothers.  Thus they have no claim on their
mothers' bodies, and this objection to abortion is bogus.

--
The above viewpoints are mine.  They are unrelated to
those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer.

Ken Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]